Chapter D: B. Burrows (Bendire, 1895) says that, in Starr County, on the lower

Rio Grande, “the golden-fronted woodpecker is a common resident species in this locality, and much more abundant than Baird’s woodpecker, the only other variety that I have found here. They may be found wherever there is a growth of trees sufficiently large to afford nesting places, but are most numerous in the river bottoms where there is a heavy growth of old mesquite timber.”

_Nesting._--Major Bendire (1895) writes: “Nidification commences sometimes in the latter part of March, but usually not much before the middle of April; both sexes assist in this labor, and it takes from six to ten days to excavate a proper nesting site; both live and dead trees are used for this purpose, as well as telegraph poles and fence posts; the holes are rarely over 12 inches deep, and are situated at no great distances from the ground, mostly from 6 to 25 feet up.” As to its nesting in Starr County, he quotes from Mr. Burrows: “The nest is by preference made in the live trunks of large trees, usually the mesquite, but sometimes in a dead stump or limb, the same cavity being used year after year, and it is quite a rare thing to see a fresh excavation. The nesting season begins in April, and most of the nests contain fresh eggs by May 10. I took a set of six eggs from a cavity in a live mesquite tree, the opening being but 2 feet 9 inches from the ground, but usually they are placed from 8 to 20 feet up.” And H. P. Attwater wrote to him that “near San Antonio, Texas, where the golden-fronted woodpecker is a common resident, it nests in all kinds of tall live timber, pecan, oak, and large mesquite trees being preferred, but telegraph poles furnished favorite sites here also. A line running out of San Antonio to a ranch nine miles distant was almost destroyed by these birds; they came from all sides, from far and near, and made fresh holes every year, sometimes as many as five or six in a single pole. Here it also nests occasionally in artificial nesting sites, like bird boxes, etc., in yards and gardens.”

My only experience with the nesting habits of this woodpecker was in Cameron County, Tex., where we found this noisy and conspicuous bird quite common in the trees about the ranches. On May 24, 1923, we found two nests quite near the buildings on a well-kept Mexican ranch and collected two sets of four fresh eggs; one was about 8 feet up in an anaqua tree and the other about 12 feet from the ground in a willow.

_Eggs._--The golden-fronted woodpecker lays four to seven eggs to a set, usually four or five. The eggs are pure white and vary from ovate to short or rounded-ovate, with very little or no gloss when fresh.

The measurements of 59 eggs average 25.82 by 19.50 millimeters; the eggs showing the four extremes measure =28.45= by 20.07, 27.94 by =20.83=, =22.86= by 17.78, and 25.91 by =18.03= millimeters.

_Young._--Major Bendire (1895) says: “Incubation lasts about fourteen days, and both sexes share this duty. * * * It is probable that two broods are occasionally raised in a season, as there are sets of eggs in the collection taken in June, and two of these in the latter part of this month.” But Mr. Simmons (1925) says “probably only one brood.” Both parents assist in the care of the young. In summer and fall the young may be seen traveling about with their parents in family parties, but they separate before winter.

_Plumages._--Probably the young are hatched naked and blind, as with other woodpeckers, and the juvenal plumage is acquired before the young bird leaves the nest. The young male, in juvenal plumage, is similar to the adult male but is everywhere duller, with the markings less clearly defined; the red crown patch is smaller and consists of somewhat scattered red feathers; there is usually more or less indistinct dusky barring on the forehead, which is duller yellow than in the adult; the yellow of the hind neck is paler and duller; the chest is usually more or less streaked with dusky, and the yellow on the abdomen is paler. The young female is similar to the young male but without any red on the head, the yellow band on the hind neck paler, and the under parts all paler. This juvenal plumage is apparently worn all through fall and early winter; I have seen it as late as January 5; but probably a protracted molt during fall and winter produces a gradual change into a plumage that is practically adult. Adults have a complete postnuptial molt late in summer and fall, mainly in August and September, according to what few molting specimens I have seen.

_Food._--Bendire (1895) says: “Their food consists of insects of various kinds, such as beetles, ants, grasshoppers, also larvae, acorns, Indian corn, and different kinds of wild berries and fruit. Considered from an economic point of view, this woodpecker certainly does more good than harm, and the only thing that can be said against it is that in certain localities where it is common it may make itself more or less of a nuisance by injuring telegraph poles.” In this connection, George B. Sennett (1879) makes the following interesting remark: “The numerous holes which I observed the previous season in the telegraph poles, and which I inferred might be nests of Woodpeckers, I found to be excavations made by the birds in search of a large species of borer that works in the dry wood.”

Roy W. Quillin writes to me that “this species has an odd habit of placing shelled mesquite beans in the nesting holes. I have not yet found any reason for this which seemed plausible.”

_Behavior._--In general habits and behavior, the golden-fronted woodpecker is much like the red-bellied woodpecker, to which it is closely related; and it reminded me also of our more familiar red-headed woodpecker. It is a lively, active, noisy bird, being much in evidence wherever it is found. It loves to perch for many minutes in the dead top of some tall tree or on some telegraph or telephone pole, where it can obtain a good outlook. Mr. Burrows (Bendire, 1895) says: “During the fall and winter they may be found traveling about from place to place in pairs, and are easily located by the call note, which somewhat resembles that of the red-bellied woodpecker, the habits of the two birds being in many respects quite similar. In the spring, when nesting, they become very noisy, and when approached, utter their alarm note with great vigor. I have never known this species to drum on a dead limb, as most of the other woodpeckers do. When searching for food they may be seen very diligently at work near the base of old trees, among the thick bushes, or even on the ground.”

_Voice._--Mr. Simmons (1925) says that this bird is “extremely noisy,” and describes its notes as “a harsh, rapid, scolding _chuh-chuh-chuh-chuh-chuh-chuh-chuh_; a metallic _whah-whah_; a loud, long-drawn _sk-k-k-k-ah-er-r-r-r_ or _tcher-r-r-r_, _tcher-r-r-r_; a short _check_, _check-check_. Both this species and the red-bellied woodpecker have the same _chow_, _chow_, _chow_, _chow_ call; however, there is a striking difference in the tone; the call of the Red-bellied Woodpecker may be imitated by completely filling the mouth with air and keeping the lips pushed well forward, while that of the golden-fronted woodpecker--_choogh-choogh_--is best given by pulling the lips back tightly, tautening the vocal cords, and making a hoarse, croupy noise in the throat, since the bird at times sounds as if it had a bad cold.”

Mr. Hasbrouck (1889) writes: “Their note is peculiar, combining the ‘chirp, chirp’ of _carolinus_ with a certain shrillness and accent of their own, while the call note, either flying or at rest, is similar to that of _M. erythrocephalus_ and at the same time not unlike that of _Colaptes auratus_. While their notes once learned are readily recognized, still it takes not a little practice to distinguish between a red-head in one tree and the gold-front in the next, or between a gold-front and a flicker when both are on the opposite side of a ravine and hidden from view; and I have more than once shot _carolinus_ even when morally certain it was what I wanted.”

_Field marks._--The golden-fronted woodpecker might easily be confused with the red-bellied woodpecker, for they are often found in the same general region, and both have the back and wings barred with black and white; but all the lower part of the rump is white, instead of barred, in the golden-fronted and the gray under parts are tinged with yellow, instead of red; the male red-bellied has the whole upper part of the head, from forehead to hind neck, bright scarlet, and the female has an extensive patch of red on the posterior half of the upper head; whereas the male golden-fronted has a much smaller patch of red on the crown, a yellow forehead, and an orange-yellow band on the hind neck; and the female golden-fronted has no red on the head at all. The voice is said to be more distinctive than the color pattern.

_Enemies._--Mr. Quillin writes to me: “While this species is still fairly abundant in southern Texas, it was much more plentiful ten or more years ago. Because of the damage the birds wrought to telephone and telegraph poles, the various concerns owning such property secured passage of a law placing all woodpeckers on the unprotected list. This done, they gave section crews of the railroads shotguns, and the killing was on in earnest. Hunters and others helped, and the result has been a marked decrease in the ranks of this species. The killing, or controlling still continues. However, pressure is now being brought to place the birds back on the protected list, and this will be done sooner or later. There is no getting around the fact that the birds did cause considerable damage. In this species we have a woodpecker which for centuries had been pecking into hard mesquite trees. Along came the soft pine poles and these same birds immediately literally ate them up. I have seen 16 holes, three of which were deep enough for nesting sites, in one small pole, not over 10 inches in diameter.”

DISTRIBUTION

_Range._--North-central Texas south to Central Mexico; nonmigratory.

The golden-fronted woodpecker ranges =north= to central Texas (San Angelo and Dallas). =East= to Texas (Dallas, Giddings, Cuero, Corpus Christi, and Brownsville); Tamaulipas (Matamoros, San Fernando, Ciudad Victoria, and Tampico); southeastern San Luis Potosi (Valles); Hidalgo (Ixmiquilipam and Tula); and the Federal District of Mexico (near Mexico City). =South= to the Federal District of Mexico (near Mexico City); Michoacan (Querendero, Morelia, and Patzcuaro); and Jalisco (Ocotlan and Guadalajara). =West= to Jalisco (Guadalajara); Zacatecas (Calvillo, Aguas Calientes, and Chicalote); northwestern Durango (Boquilla, Sestin, and Rosario); eastern Chihuahua (Julimes); and central Texas (Eagle Pass, Fort Clark, Kerrville, and San Angelo).

_Egg dates._--Texas: 66 records, March 30 to June 29; 33 records,
April 24 to May 17, indicating the height of the season.

CENTURUS UROPYGIALIS UROPYGIALIS Baird

GILA WOODPECKER

PLATES 32-34

HABITS

In the desert regions of our southwestern borders, this gay little woodpecker is one of the commonest, noisiest, and most conspicuous birds, always much in evidence, and always seeming to protest, in whining tones, the intrusion of strangers. Its center of abundance seems to be on the great desert mesas of southern Arizona, where the infertile soil is scantily covered with a scattered growth of creosote bushes, low mesquites, an occasional cholla or barrel cactus and dotted with single specimens or little groups of the giant cactus, or saguaro. But it is also common in the river bottoms, covered with a heavier growth of mesquite, and in the canyons of the foothills among the cottonwoods, willows, and sycamores. It ranges from an elevation of 2,500 feet on the mesas up to 4,000, or even 4,500, feet in the canyons and foothills.

In this region, it is a dominant species and a very useful neighbor, even if unintentionally, for the many species of birds and small mammals for which it provides homes. M. French Gilman (1915) puts it very well as follows:

Were it not for the Gila woodpecker (_Centurus
uropygialis_) what would become of the several species
of birds that use already prepared cavities for their
domiciles? In some cases these tenants do not even
await the pleasure of the excavators, but take forcible
possession. In holes excavated by Gila woodpeckers there
may regularly be found nesting the elf owl, ferruginous
pigmy owl, ash-throated flycatcher, and Arizona crested
flycatcher. Occasionally a cactus wren makes use of the
handy hollow, and once I saw one occupied by a Lucy
warbler. A big “rough-neck” scaly lizard frequents the
holes when not too high in the cactus, and in two holes in
willow trees I found snakes. It is not pleasant to insert
one’s hand and have a big lizard or snake crawl up the
arm to escape. Rats and mice are sometimes found in the
deserted holes, especially if the tree be much decayed
and with cracks and hollows connecting holes at different
heights in the tree or branch. So these woodpeckers may be
considered among the class of innocent or unintentional
benefactors.

In addition to the species mentioned by Mr. Gilman above, we found saguaro screech owls, desert sparrow hawks, and western martins nesting in the old holes made by woodpeckers. Some of these holes were doubtless made by Mearns’s gilded flickers, perhaps those that were used by the larger species, as this woodpecker is fairly common in the same region and nests regularly in the saguaros. These old holes make ideal nesting sites, for the sap of the cactus hardens around the excavations, making them fairly permanent nesting boxes; I have seen these gourd-shaped pockets still persisting in fallen saguaros, where the pulp had all rotted away, leaving only the skeleton ribs of the dead giant.

_Nesting._--While collecting with the late Frank C. Willard in southern Arizona in 1922, we examined seven occupied nests of the Gila woodpecker. The first of these was found on May 17, at Fairbank, in the valley of the San Pedro River; the nest was a cavity 15 inches deep in a dead branch of a cottonwood, 15 feet above ground. Five days, May 19 to 23, were spent in Pima County, in the vicinity of Tucson, between the mesquite forest in the valley of the Santa Cruz River and the southern end of the Santa Catalina Mountains. Two nests were found in the mesquite forest on May 19, both in mesquite trees, one 20 and one 25 feet from the ground; one contained only a single fresh egg and the other held a brood of young. We had an interesting experience here the next day. While crossing the forest, I saw a Gila woodpecker fly out from what I supposed was its nesting hole, about 15 feet up in a mesquite stub; the bird made such a great fuss about it that I felt sure that we had a set of woodpecker’s eggs within easy reach, and I called Mr. Willard to investigate it. He climbed the stub and chopped out the hole, while the woodpecker was flying about, scolding us and showing the greatest concern. But, much to our surprise, he pulled out an elf owl and three unmistakable elf owl’s eggs. I killed the owl and shot the woodpecker, which still seemed much interested; and, on skinning and sexing both specimens, I found that the woodpecker was a male and the owl a female. We were naturally much puzzled to figure out the relationship between the two birds and their interest in the nest. But, since reading Mr. Gilman’s remarks, quoted above, that sometimes the woodpecker’s tenants “do not even await the pleasure of the excavators, but take forcible possession,” it has occurred to me that probably this was a case in point. The owl may have appropriated the finished burrow of the woodpecker, and the latter was trying to evict an unwelcome tenant.

The remaining four nests found in this vicinity, and one found by Mr. Willard on June 11, were all in saguaros on the desert mesa; the heights from the ground varied from 16 to 20 feet; and the cavities varied in depths from 15 to 20 inches; there was one set of five eggs, two nests held four and one three eggs; and in one nest were two young and an addled egg.

Referring to the nesting habits of this woodpecker in the vicinity of the Gila River, in Arizona, Mr. Gilman (1915) writes:

Nesting sites in this locality are restricted to giant
cactus (_Cereus giganteus_), cottonwood and willow, as they
are the only suitable material for a nest excavation. More
nests are found in the giant cactus, as these plants are
more numerous than the others, and more “peckable,” though
the willows and cottonwoods along the river and the canals
are well patronized when sufficiently decayed. Of the nests
I examined I should say that fifty per cent were in the
cactus, and the rest equally divided between the other
trees mentioned. * * *

As to the size of the holes in the cactus as compared with
those in cottonwood and willow, I found no appreciable
difference. I expected the holes in the cactus to average
a little larger owing to possible greater ease in
excavating but the difference was too slight to be sure
of in measuring. Of eighteen holes measured, the average
diameter was 1.95 inches; the largest was 2.25 inches and
the smallest 1.87 inches. The deepest hole was 16 inches,
with the entrance 2 inches in diameter. The shallowest one
was 9 inches, with entrance a little less than 2 inches in
diameter. The average depth of holes measured was a little
more than 12 inches. Many of the holes were not exactly
circular, there being a difference of from ⅛ to nearly ½
inch between the long and short diameter if it be allowable
to use the term in that way. Usually the nest hole runs
straight in for a short distance before turning downward,
the distance seemingly depending on the texture of the
wood. In one case the hole went straight back for nine
inches before turning downward. It was in a big cottonwood
stump, and the bird excavated horizontally until decayed
wood was reached, when the hole turned downward. This was
an extreme case, as the depth horizontally is usually about
three inches. In the giant cactus it varies according to
the diameter of the trunk, the smaller the trunk the less
distance before turning downward. * * *

The same nest hole is used more than one season, both in
cactus and other locations. In 1913 I found a nest in a
big cottonwood stump containing young. The next year it
had young again, and I cut into it to measure the hole and
count them.

Frank C. Willard (1912) says: “I think it is their habit to dig fresh holes after raising their brood of young. These fresh holes are not occupied that year but are made use of the next year when the sap has had a chance to dry and form the hard lining which coats the inside of all the cavities. I have found but one fresh hole occupied as a nest.” Bendire (1895) also says that “most of their nesting sites are used for several years in succession; in fact, I doubt very much if a freshly excavated hole in a giant cactus is fit to nest in the same season. Both sexes assist in excavating the nesting site.”

In the heavily incrusted nest cavity in a giant cactus, the eggs lie on the bare, hard floor of the nest, there being no chips to furnish a soft bed.

In addition to the trees mentioned above, the Gila woodpecker has been found nesting more rarely in oaks and palo-verdes.

_Eggs._--The Gila woodpecker lays three to five eggs, three or four being much oftener found than five. The eggs are pure white and not very glossy when fresh, but sometimes quite glossy when heavily incubated; they vary from ovate to elliptical-ovate and are sometimes quite pointed. The measurements of 52 eggs average 25.14 by 18.56 millimeters; the eggs showing the four extremes measure =27.43= by 18.80, 26.6 by =20.1=, =22.86= by 17.27, and 23.9 by =16.6= millimeters.

_Young._--Incubation is said to last about two weeks, and is probably shared by both parents. Mr. Gilman (1915) writes:

It is not easy to determine just what food the young in
the nest are given, but insects play a prominent part, as
I have seen them frequently carried to the young. Fruit
is also used, as I watched one parent carry ripe Lycium
berries several times to the nest; after emerging from the
hole she would halt at the entrance each time and “lick her
chops.” * * *

The young are fed by the parents for a long time after
leaving the nest, and they are regular little beggars. One
pair stayed around our house for several months, and became
quite tame. They were missed during the breeding season
but soon came back with three youngsters to share the good
things found on the bird tables in the yard. The young,
though as large as their parents, would flutter their
wings and sit with open beak as though the old ones told
them to “open your mouth and shut your eyes,” etc. The old
ones would try to get them to eat watermelon placed on the
tables, but the babies would not be shown; the parents had
to put it in their mouths. They followed the parents from
perch to perch, begging for food until I expected to see
them chastised. The pair in question stayed with the three
juvenals until they had them broken to eat for themselves,
and then left. After a proper interval they came back with
two more young ones, thus indicating that a second brood is
sometimes raised. The abundant supply of food may have been
a determining factor in the number of broods raised.

_Plumages._--The nestlings are naked and blind at first but become fully clothed in the juvenal plumage before leaving the nest. The young male, in juvenal plumage, is much like the adult male, but the colors are generally paler, the head and under parts grayer, the barring on the upper parts less distinct, and the white bars are suffused with brownish buff; the red patch on the crown is smaller and often consists of only a few red feathers; and the bill is somewhat smaller and weaker. The young female is like the young male but has no red on the head. I have been unable to trace the postjuvenal molt, but young birds in the following spring are apparently like the adults. Adults have a complete postnuptial molt in August, September, and October.

_Food._--Major Bendire (1895) says: “Its food consists of insects of various kinds, such as ants, beetles, grasshoppers, and larvæ, and in season largely on the sweet, fig-like fruit of the sahuaras, the giant cactus, and also, to a considerable extent, on the viscous berries of a species of mistletoe which is commonly found on most of the larger cottonwoods, oaks, and mesquite trees in these regions. These sticky, whitish-looking berries are a favorite food of many Arizona birds.”

Mr. Gilman (1915) writes:

The food, of this woodpecker is varied, nearly everything
being grist that comes to his mill. He pecks around decayed
and dying trees as well as green ones, and presumably get
the insects usually found and eaten by such birds. The
giant cactus is pecked into very frequently, and I believe
some of the pulp is eaten. The small punctures made are not
enlarged, and in some cases quite an area is bitten into.
The fruit of the giant cactus is eaten as long as it lasts,
and the berries of the Lycium are also freely eaten. The
Gila woodpecker frequents corn fields, and pecks through
the husks into the ears of corn. The birds may peck in
at first to get a worm, but it is a case similar to the
discovery of roast pig as portrayed by Lamb. They alight on
the ground and feed upon table scraps thrown to chickens,
three of them being regular morning visitors, star
boarders, to a pen of chickens I fed. They are very fond of
peaches and pears, and volubly resent being driven from a
tree of the fruit. They peck holes in ripening pomegranates
and then the green fruit beetle helps finish the fruit They
relish grapes, both white and colored, and will spear one
with their bill and carry it to a convenient crevice where
it may be eaten at leisure. On bird tables I have tried
them with various articles of food and found very little
that they rejected. They would not eat cantaloupe at all
but were regular watermelon fiends, eating it three times
a day and calling for more. They did not care for oranges,
and I had no success in trying to teach them to eat ripe
pickled olives. I tried the olive diet on them because two
Mocking-birds in our yard learned to eat this fruit. Meat,
raw and cooked, was eaten, and they ate suet greedily.
Their favorite cut of beef was the T-bone steak and we
always left some meat on the bone for them. They picked it
clean, and if a new supply was slow in coming the softer
parts of the bone were devoured. * * * Mr. Frank Pinkley,
custodian of the Casa Grande Ruins told me of a pair of
these woodpeckers that stayed around his home and became
quite tame, coming into the shed to drink from a can of
water. He said they got into the habit of sucking the eggs
in the chicken house, or at least pecking into them and
eating of the contents. * * *

The Indians store corn in the ear on the flat tops of their
houses and sheds, * * * and each home has one or more of
woodpecker retainers or pensioners hanging about most of
the time. This corn provides an abundant and sure source
of food, and the birds make the most of it. I have never
seen any indication of food-storage on the part of the Gila
woodpecker, as with the California Woodpecker, for they
live in a claw-to-beak fashion. They peck at a kernel until
it comes off the cob, when it is carried to a post or tree
and placed firmly in a crack. Here it is pecked to pieces
and eaten. They seem never to swallow a kernel whole but
always break it up.

W. L. Dawson (1923) says that this woodpecker indulges in “a systematic search for birds’ eggs, especially those of the Lucy warbler, yellow warbler, and Arizona Least Vireo. In case of the first-named, the eggs are devoured in spite of the most emphatic protests of the tiny parents; but eggs of Cardinal, Cooper Tanager and Towhee must be obtained by stealth.”

A. H. Anderson (1934) writes:

In the Tucson, Arizona, area a gall-insect (_Pachypsylla
venusta_) frequently attacks the leaves of the hackberry
tree (_Celtis reticulata_). The galls form on the leaf
petiole, becoming from a quarter to half an inch in
diameter. During the winter the outer shell hardens like a
nut.

I have often seen the Gila woodpeckers tear the galls loose
from the twigs and, flying to a fence post, proceed to
chisel out the contents. The hard gall is wedged into a
crack on the post and then opened by repeated hammering.
Around the base of one fence post I counted nearly 300
empty shells. Sometimes cracks in nearby trees are used. At
one time five of these woodpeckers were seen in a single
tree, all of them feeding on the galls.

_Behavior._--The Gila woodpecker is not only the most abundant woodpecker, in fact one of the most abundant birds, in the region it inhabits, but it is more conspicuous, noisier, and more active than any of its neighbors. It is always much in evidence, always protesting the intrusion of a stranger, and shows the greatest concern when its nest is approached, especially if it has young. It is a close sitter and will often remain in the nest hole to peck viciously at an investigating hand; while the nest is being robbed, it flits nervously about, scolding vociferously with all the vile epithets it can muster. As to its behavior with other species, Mr. Gilman (1915) writes:

This woodpecker has not the best disposition in the world,
for he is very quarrelsome and intolerant. He fights his
own kin and all the neighbors that he dares. He, or she,
is a great bluffer however and when “called”, frequently
side-steps, subsides, or backs out entirely. I saw one
approach a Bendire Thrasher that was eating, and suddenly
pounce on him. He had the thrasher down and I was thinking
of offering my friendly services as a board of arbitration,
when the under bird crawled from beneath and soon gave
the woodpecker the thrashing of his career. Several times
I have seen the woodpeckers start to attack Bendire and
Palmer thrashers, but they were always bluffed or beaten at
the game. With the Bronzed Cowbirds it is a drawn battle,
sometimes one and then the other backing down. Most other
birds, such as Cardinals, Abert Towhees, Dwarf Cowbirds and
Cactus Wrens do not attempt to assert their rights, but
always take a rear seat. But when it is woodpecker versus
woodpecker it seems not to be a case of “Thrice armed is he
who hath his quarrel just”, but rather, “Four times he who
gets his blow in fust”.

I had two bird tables about twenty feet apart, and
frequently one woodpecker might be peacefully assimilating
watermelon, when another one would come hurrying up and
make a dive at him, causing a retreat to the other table.
Frequently the new-comer would then follow and drive him
from the second table. He seemingly would rather fight than
eat if another was eating at the same time. One day I saw
him, or her, I forget which, hanging to the edge of the
table busily eating steak, when another one perched on the
table and made a vicious stab at him. He dodged backward
clear under the table, though retaining his hold, and then
bobbed up again, just like the Punch and Judy show. The
attack was renewed, and the dodging as well, but this time
he did not “come back”. Another day one of them was at
work on a piece of melon when one of his fellows came and
perched on the end of the table. The diner made a pass at
the new comer, and seizing him by the feathers of the neck
held him suspended over the end of the table for a few
seconds.

_Voice._--Major Bendire (1895) says: “Its ordinary call note, sounding like ‘dchürr, dchürr,’ can be heard in all directions in the spring; when flying from one point to another it usually utters a sharp, shrill ‘huit’ two or three times, resembling the common call note of the Phainopepla, and which may readily be mistaken for it. It is also more or less addicted to drumming on the dead tops of cottonwood, sycamore, and mesquite trees.”

Mr. Gilman (1915) writes:

As a neighbor, the Gila Woodpecker is permanently on the
map, and is afraid neither of being seen nor heard. He is
much in the public ear with a variety of notes and calls.
His sociable conversational notes somewhat resemble those
of the California Woodpecker but are shriller. In such of
his notes as are directed at humanity there is a peevish
complaining tone, especially if closely approached when
feeding on fruit or some other delicacy. In such cases
there is only one term that exactly describes his attitude
and utterances, and that is the phrase “belly-aching.”
In fact all of his talk at us has a distinctly “colicky”
tone and one feels like giving him something to whine
about. His ordinary call slightly resembles that of the
Flicker but is not quite so loud; altogether he is quite a
conversationalist.

_Field marks._--The Gila woodpecker should be easily recognized as a medium-sized woodpecker, about the size of a hairy woodpecker, with a grayish-brown head, neck, and under parts and a back narrowly barred with black and white; in flight a white patch shows in the wing and basal half of the primaries, and the black and white barring on the central tail feathers is rather conspicuous; the red crown patch of the male is conspicuous only at short range.

_Fall._--This woodpecker is apparently somewhat given to wandering in fall and spring, for W. E. D. Scott (1886) says that he does not see it about his house, at an elevation of 4,500 feet in Pinal County, Ariz., in summer, but that it is rather common there in fall and spring.

DISTRIBUTION

_Range._--Southwestern United States and western Mexico; nonmigratory.

The range of the Gila woodpecker extends =north= to extreme southern Nevada (Clark County); southern Arizona (Sacaton, Rock Canyon, and Tombstone); and southwestern New Mexico (Red Rock and probably Gila). =East= to New Mexico (probably Gila); eastern Sonora (Fronteras, Boca de Huachy, and Nuri); southwestern Chihuahua (Batopilas); western Durango (Chacala); and western Zacatecas (Calvillo). =South= to southwestern Zacatecas (Calvillo); and Jalisco (Guadalajara, Santa Ano, and Rio Ameca). =West= to Jalisco (Rio Ameca); Nayarit (Tepic and San Blas); southwestern Sinaloa (Escuinapa, Labrados, and Mazatlan); Baja California (Cape San Lucas, Santa Margarita Island, San Ignacio, Rosario, San Quintin, Las Palmas, and the Alamo River); southeastern California (Calexico, probably Brawley, Palo Verde, and Needles); and southern Nevada (Clark County).

This species has been separated into three geographic races, or subspecies. Typical _C. u. uropygialis_ is the form found in that part of the range lying in the United States, and this race also is the one found in the western mainland of Mexico. The cardon woodpecker (_C. u. cardonensis_) is found in the northern part of Baja California south to about latitude 28° N. Brewster’s woodpecker (_C. u. brewsteri_) occupies the cape district of Baja California north to San Ignacio and including also Santa Margarita Island.

_Egg dates._--Arizona: 26 records, April 7 to May 30; 13 records,
May 5 to 25, indicating the height of the season.
Baja California: 10 records, April 21 to June 2.

CENTURUS UROPYGIALIS CARDONENSIS Grinnell

CARDON WOODPECKER

HABITS

In describing and naming this race, Dr. Joseph Grinnell (1927a) says:

In its main characters similar to _Centurus uropygialis
uropygialis_, but general coloration much darker: whole
head (except for red patch on crown) and anterior lower
surface strongly tinged with snuff brown rather than pale
drab; and white barring on closed wings, tail, dorsum,
rump, flanks, and lower tail coverts, narrower, leaving
the black-barring correspondingly broader. Similar to _C.
u. brewsteri_, but size larger, and coloration darker, in
the same respects though not to quite so great a degree as
shown in comparison with _uropygialis_. In other words, the
new form differs from both the previously known races in
the deeper brown tinge of the head and lower surface and in
the greater degree of predominance of black over white in
the barring.

He says of its range: “So far as now known, only the giant cactus (cardon) association in the northern section of the Lower Californian peninsula, from about latitude 30° to latitude 31°. Life-zone, Lower Sonoran.” The 1931 Check-list extends the range northward “along the western rim of the Colorado Desert to about latitude 32°.”

A. W. Anthony (1895a) says of the haunts of this woodpecker in Baja California: “The range of this species along the Pacific slope is exactly coextensive with that of _Cereus pringlei_, becoming common with that cactus a short distance below Rosario and seldom if ever being seen at any distance from the shelter of its mighty branches. At the mission, where the cardons were very large and abundant, to within a short distance of the mesquite thickets, this Woodpecker delighted in making frequent forays into the lesser growth, spending hours in hammering on the mesquite trunks and hunting through their branches, always beating a precipitate retreat to the cactus on the hillsides above at the first sign of danger.”

I can find nothing further of consequence published on the habits of the cardon woodpecker, which doubtless do not differ materially from those of its Arizona relative.

The eggs are similar to those of the Gila woodpecker. The measurements of 11 eggs average 23.59 by 18.30 millimeters; the eggs showing the four extremes measure =25.6= by 18.1, 24.5 by =19.8=, =21.9= by 17.8, and 22.1 by =17.3= millimeters. Griffing Bancroft has a still larger egg, which measures 26.4 by 21.8 millimeters.

CENTURUS UROPYGIALIS BREWSTERI Ridgway

BREWSTER’S WOODPECKER

HABITS

In the Cape region of Baja California, we find this local race, which Ridgway (1914) describes as “similar to _C. u. uropygialis_ but smaller, with relatively (often absolutely) larger bill, bars on back, etc., averaging decidedly narrower (the white ones about 1.5-2 mm. wide), black bars on lower rump and upper tail-coverts narrower or more numerous, and white bars on lateral rectrices as well as black ones on inner web of middle rectrices narrower.”

William Brewster (1902) says: “In the Cape Region the Gila Woodpecker has apparently much the same distribution as _Dryobates lucasanus_. Neither Mr. Belding nor Mr. Frazar found it in the higher mountains, but both note its abundance throughout the low country, and Mr. Frazar obtained many specimens at Triunfo which is within the lower edge of the oak belt.”

Griffing Bancroft (1930) referred the woodpeckers of this species that he found breeding in central Lower California to this southern race. Probably they are intermediate between this and _cardonensis_. He says of it:

The most abundant bird of its order, ranging throughout
the territory examined. It is to be found in the suburban
gardens of Santa Rosalia, among the palms of San Ignacio,
and everywhere through the desert cactus belt. Its favorite
choice of a home is a site high in a candelabra cardón; but
it will also nest, even when not driven by necessity, in
palms and tree yucca.

Its breeding season is quite long, fresh eggs being found
from the latter part of April until well into June. The
number laid is irregular. About half the sets are of two,
but there are four’s and even five’s. Sixteen eggs taken in
the vicinity of San Ignacio average 24.0 by 18.9 mm.

The birds are quite tame and often cannot be flushed. More
than once, on opening cavities, we have lifted an adult
from eggs or young, or even from an empty hole. Repeatedly
a bird has been seen flying into a nest, either to feed
young or to go onto eggs, while people were standing at
the foot of the tree. When their homes are being examined
the birds often approach within a few feet to voice their
protests. Such fearlessness is unusual on this desert.

COLAPTES AURATUS AURATUS (Linnaeus)

SOUTHERN FLICKER

PLATE 35

HABITS

The type name _auratus_ is now restricted to the flickers of the South Atlantic and Gulf States, from North Carolina to southern Florida and central Texas north to extreme southern Illinois and Indiana, southeastern Missouri, and southeastern Kansas, because the above Linnaean name was based on birds described by Catesby, which belonged to the smaller southern race.

The habits of the southern flicker are so similar to those of the northern flicker that the following account given for the northern race will serve very well for both. It is a common bird, widely distributed and well known throughout its range. In Florida we found it rather partial to open, burned-over tracts in the flat pine woods, nesting in the charred stumps, but it was also common in more open country in thinly settled regions, where we often found it nesting in isolated trees or dead stubs of palmettos or pines.

W. J. Erichsen (1920) says of its haunts in Chatham County, Ga.: “Wherever there are areas of cut-over lands on which remain an abundance of dead trees this species will be found in large numbers. At all seasons it exhibits a preference for open pine barrens, but, particularly during the breeding season, is occasionally met with about the edges of swamps if they contain suitable nesting sites. It is abundant on all of the wooded islands, particularly Ossabaw island, where I observed it in large numbers in May, 1915. Here it is oftenest seen in the woods close to the salt marsh or adjoining the beach, apparently not frequenting in any numbers the more heavily forested interior of the island.”

_Nesting._--Capt. H. L. Harllee writes to me that southern flickers raise two broods in a season in South Carolina and are not very particular as to their nesting sites. They nest in holes of their own excavation in dead trees of many species, 3 to 100 feet from the ground, either in thick woods or in a lone dead tree in an open cultivated field; they also nest in natural cavities in trees. He found one pair of these birds nesting in a hole made by fire in an old burned-out stump; the cavity was about two feet deep and eight inches in diameter; “the opening was slightly arched over with grass growing around it; a small quantity of pine straw was the only lining.”

Arthur H. Howell (1932) says: “The nests are placed in pines, oaks, cabbage palms, or other trees, at heights varying from a few feet to 60 feet above the ground. At Ponce Park, in May, 1925, I observed a Flicker using a hole in a palmetto pile under the dock on the shore of the Halifax River, only 2 feet above the salt water at high tide. Nicholson found a nest 12 inches above the ground in a sawed-off stump of a palmetto on a ditch bank.”

Alexander Sprunt, Jr. (1931), mentions a concentration of hole-nesting birds in a tree in a yard in Beaufort, S. C.; the tree measured only 20 feet in height and contained nests of two pairs of flickers, and one nest each of crested flycatcher, screech owl, and downy woodpecker. “All five cavities were contained in a radius of ten feet, and four were within six feet of each other.”

A. F. Ganier (1926) writes:

While in the suburbs of Chattanooga, Tennessee, last
spring, I noticed a Flicker engaged in what appeared to
be a hopeless task in the way of nest excavation. An iron
water tank, supported by steel columns forty feet high,
was fed by a large iron pipe through its bottom, and, to
keep this pipe from freezing in winter, it had been encased
with a plank shaft two feet square that was filled with
cedar sawdust. Our friend _Colaptes auratus_ had evidently
sounded the boards, and, sensing easy digging, had drilled
a hole in the middle of one side about thirty feet up. When
espied, he was enthusiastically pitching out quantities of
sawdust, which I presume caved in about as fast as he dug,
but during the half hour I was engaged near by there was
no let up in the work. About a month later I was again in
the vicinity and made it a point to go by the tank. On the
ground below the hole was at least a bushel of sawdust, and
in a few minutes I had the pleasure of seeing a Flicker
enter the hole with food in its mouth, presumably to feed
the young that had come to reward his perseverance.

_Eggs._--The southern flicker lays five to ten eggs, ordinarily, but shares with its northern relative its reputation as a prolific egg layer; it will continue to lay again and again after being robbed, as many as 30 or 40 eggs and often three or four sets. The eggs are similar to those of the northern flicker, except for a slight difference in size. The measurements of 44 eggs from South Carolina average 28.57 by 22.01 millimeters; the eggs showing the four extremes measure =30.15= by =24.56= and =24.13= by =20.32= millimeters. These seem to run larger than eggs from farther north.

In all other respects, the habits of the southern flicker are similar to those of the species elsewhere, with due allowance for the difference in environment. Two items of interest, however, are worth quoting. Charles R. Stockard (1904) writes from Mississippi:

On April 18 a burrow of a Flicker containing only one fresh
egg was found. The egg was not disturbed. When visiting
the nest again on April 28 a flying squirrel was found in
possession. On my arrival the bird was at the entrance of
the burrow peering in at the intruder. It was supposed that
the squirrel was eating the eggs, but on examining the nest
it was found to contain one spoilt egg. The squirrel had
then probably been in possession for the ten days since the
nest was observed, so the bird had been unable to enter and
lay. * * * The Flicker must then have remained about her
nest for this length of time, and as soon as the squirrel
was removed she again took charge. On visiting the nest
May 5, seven days later, it contained seven fresh eggs and
the old one that had been left. * * * This was undoubtedly
a case of discontinuous laying unless she had dropped her
eggs on the ground while the squirrel was occupying the
nest.

Mrs. Sanford Duncan (1932), of Nashville, Tenn., tells an interesting story of a flicker that was captured by a bullsnake. She heard a great commotion among the birds in her yard and went out to investigate the cause of the excitement. “The Flickers were leading the battle, dashing and darting at a bundle of something on the ground. Closer inspection with field glasses showed it was a snake, all tied up in a curious knot. He was too big for me to attack with the hoe I had, so I shot into the ‘bundle’ with a shotgun. As if by magic the snake flung himself into the air and fell, straightened out, over five feet long, and disclosed a full-grown Flicker that he had wrapped himself around many times. The Flicker was still alive, but died very shortly, probably from the gunshot that killed the bullsnake.”

Lester W. Smith writes to me that he watched a southern flicker digging white grubs out of a lawn and killing them by repeated blows and shaking; meantime a loggerhead shrike was attempting to rob the flicker of its prey.

DISTRIBUTION

_Range._--North America, chiefly east of the Rocky Mountains, and from the limit of trees south to the Gulf coast.

_Breeding range._--The breeding range of the flicker extends =north= to Alaska (Circle); northwestern Mackenzie (probably Fort McPherson, Fort Anderson, McVicar Bay, Fort Rae, and Hill Island Lake); northern Saskatchewan (Reindeer Lake); northern Manitoba (probably Lake Du Brochet and Fort Churchill); Ontario (Lac Seul and probably Moose Factory); Quebec (probably Fort George, probably Lake Mistassini, Godbout, and Mingan Island); and Labrador (Cartwright). From this northeastern point the range extends =southward= through Newfoundland, along the Atlantic coast to Key West, Fla. The =southern= limits of nesting are the Gulf coasts of Florida and Alabama, thence in the interior to Louisiana (St. Francisville and Genoa); and Oklahoma (Okmulgee and Norman). =West= to Oklahoma (Norman); central Kansas (Harper, Hay, and Stockton); Nebraska (Red Cloud, Alda, and Chadron); eastern Wyoming (Midwest and Newcastle); Montana (Terry, Fairview, and Great Falls); Alberta (Morrin, Henry House, and Lesser Slave Lake); northwestern British Columbia (Telegraph Creek and Atlin); Yukon (Caribou Crossing and Selkirk); and eastern Alaska (Circle). This species, more or less crossed with the red-shafted flicker (_Colaptes c. collaris_), also is found occasionally in eastern Colorado (Hallvale, Denver, and Fort Morgan).

_Winter range._--During the winter season the flicker is found with more or less regularity =north= to southeastern South Dakota (Yankton, Vermillion, and Sioux Falls); southern Minnesota (Hutchinson and Minneapolis); southern Wisconsin (North Freedom and Milwaukee); southern Michigan (Kalamazoo, Jackson, Ann Arbor, and Detroit); southern Ontario (Plover Mills, Hamilton, and Toronto); New York (Rochester, Syracuse, and Rhinebeck); and rarely Maine (Waterville). From this point it is found =south= along the Atlantic coast to southern Florida (St. Lucie and Fort Myers). The southern limits of the winter range are found on the Gulf coast from Florida (Fort Myers) to Texas (Brownsville). =West= to Texas (Brownsville, San Antonio, San Angelo, and Abilene); central Oklahoma (Norman, Oklahoma City, and Tonkawa); Kansas (Wichita and rarely Hay); Nebraska (Red Cloud and North Loup); and southeastern South Dakota (Yankton). It also has been taken or observed at this season north to southern Saskatchewan (Eastend); Quebec (Montreal); New Brunswick (St. John); and Nova Scotia (Bridgetown).

The range as outlined is for the entire species, of which two subspecies are currently recognized. The typical form, known as the southern flicker (_C. a. auratus_), is found from southern Florida and Texas north to southeastern Kansas, southeastern Missouri, southern Illinois and Indiana, and North Carolina. It probably is nonmigratory. The rest of the range is occupied by the northern flicker (_C. a. luteus_).

_Spring migration._--Early dates of arrival in regions north of the winter range as outlined, are: Nova Scotia--Wolfville, March 26; Halifax, April 7. New Brunswick--Scotch Lake, April 5; Grand Manan, April 12. Quebec--Quebec City, April 27; Godbout, May 2; Paradise, June 5. North Dakota--Fargo, March 29; Charlson, March 30; Grand Forks, April 2. Manitoba--Winnipeg, March 30; Alexander, April 14; Raeburn, April 15. Saskatchewan--Eastend, April 3; McLean, April 3. Wyoming--Cheyenne, April 7; Laramie, April 12. Montana--Great Falls, April I; Terry, April 4; Jackson, April 14. Alberta--Banff, April 4; Flagstaff, April 13; Edmonton, April 17. Mackenzie--Fort Simpson, May 4; Fort Reliance, May 2. Alaska--Fairbanks, April 25; Fort Yukon, May 1.

_Fall migration._--Late dates of fall departure are: Alaska,--Wrangell, October 11; Craig, October 21. Mackenzie--near McVicar Bay, September 10; Great Slave Lake, September 11; Fort Simpson, October 16. Alberta--Lac La Biche, September 25; Glenevis, October 2; Calgary, October 10. Montana--Bozeman, September 24; Saskatchewan--Eastend, October 14. Manitoba--Alexander, October 22; Aweme, October 27. North Dakota--Arlington, October 19; Argusville, October 21; Fargo, October 21. Northern Michigan--Sault Ste. Marie, October 24. Quebec--Montreal, November 25. New Brunswick--St. John, November 5; Scotch Lake, November 22. Nova Scotia--Wolfville, November 19.

The records of flickers that have been banded and subsequently recovered throw much light upon the migrations of this species. In the files of the Biological Survey there are long series of cases where birds banded at their nests in the northern parts of the breeding range (Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Michigan, New York, and Massachusetts) have returned to the same point one to four years later. These birds probably all belonged to the subspecies _luteus_. Similarly, similar data also are available for areas (Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Florida) within the range of _C. a. auratus_, which probably is nonmigratory.

Definite migrations of individual banded birds are indicated by the records of flickers banded in Saskatchewan and recovered in Iowa, Oklahoma, and Texas; banded in Missouri and recovered in Texas; banded in Iowa and recovered in Louisiana; banded in South Dakota and recovered in Arkansas and Oklahoma (4); banded in Illinois and recovered in Kentucky, Tennessee, Missouri, Arkansas (2), and Louisiana (3); banded in Indiana and recovered in Mississippi; banded in Michigan and recovered in Arkansas and Louisiana; banded in Ohio and recovered in Alabama and Mississippi; banded in Pennsylvania and recovered in Georgia; and banded in Nova Scotia and recovered in North Carolina.

_Casual records._--In southern British Columbia a specimen was collected at Sumas on April 8, 1903, and two were seen at Vernon on December 26, 1906; a specimen was taken at Orcas Island, Wash., on October 15, 1907; one was collected at Blaine, Oreg., on November 3, 1921; and one was taken at Cliff Spring, Nev., on September 29, 1931. There are several records for California as follows: Furnace Creek, April 12, 1917; St. Geronimo, December 18, 1893, and January 14, 1895; Point Lobos, December 14, 1934; Los Angeles, February 20, 1901; San Diego, December 4, 1931; and Eldridge, January 4, 1913.

At least four occurrences well north of the breeding range in Alaska have been recorded: St. George Island, fall of 1904; Cape Etolin, September 14, 1927; Wainwright, a specimen in 1924; and Cape Halkett, in the fall of 1927.

A specimen was collected on Okpatok Island in Hudson Strait in October 1882, one was taken in Sandwich Bay in August 1908, and a specimen has been reported from Cape Wolstenholme on the Ungava Peninsula. The species also has been recorded from Bermuda where at least one specimen was collected in 1871.

_Egg dates._--Arctic America: 6 records, June 3 to 16.
Florida: 18 records, March 25 to July 18; 9 records, April 16 to
May 18, indicating the height of the season.
Illinois: 22 records, April 30 to May 30; 11 records, May 13 to 21.
Michigan: 16 records, April 17 to June 24; 8 records, May 12 to 30.
New York: 15 records, May 13 to June 15; 8 records, May 25 to 29.

COLAPTES AURATUS LUTEUS Bangs

NORTHERN FLICKER

PLATE 36

HABITS

I can remember as clearly as if it were only yesterday my boyish, enthusiastic admiration for this beautiful bird, though it was between 50 or 60 years ago that my father first showed me a freshly killed flicker. I was simply entranced with the softly blended browns, the red crescent on the head, the black crescent and bold spotting on the breast, and, above all, with the golden glow in the wings and tail. Few birds combine such charming colors and pleasing contrasts. I have never lost my admiration for it, and still consider it one of nature’s gems.

It, and its close relative, the red-shafted flicker, together are widely distributed over nearly all the wooded regions of North America. Consequently it is widely known and over most of its range is a common and familiar species. Its prominence and popularity are attested by the long list of vernacular names by which it is locally known. Franklin L. Burns (1900), in his monograph of the species, lists 123 such names; and later he adds nine more, bringing the list up to 132 names. These are far too many to be quoted here, and many of them are “very local or very slight orthographical or cacographical variants.” I have always loved our local name “partridge woodpecker,” suggestive of my boyhood days, when flickers, meadowlarks, and robins were considered legitimate game. But now the name yellow-shafted flicker seems appropriate to distinguish it, from the red-shafted flicker.

The haunts of the flicker are almost everywhere in open country or lightly wooded regions; it can hardly be called a forest-loving species, though I have often found it nesting in more or less extensive deciduous woods; its favorite haunts during the summer seem to be in the rural districts among the farms, orchards, and scattered woodlots; it seems to be at home, also, in villages and small towns, and even in some of the smaller cities, where spacious grounds and gardens provide suitable surroundings. In fall and winter it is more apt to wander about in open woodlands, fields, and meadows or seek shelter in coniferous woods or swamps.

_Spring._--Although many flickers remain all winter in the Northern States, there is a decided spring migration of the great bulk of northern-bred birds that have wintered in the Southern States. These birds gather in flocks during the late winter, and the northward movement starts with the first mild weather, the migration being largely performed during the night. Mr. Burns (1900) says that at Berwyn, Pa., the forerunners, consisting of solitary old males, appear “as early as Feb. 2 or as late as April 6, according to the promises of the season, correlating in a measure with the date at which the first frog is heard peeping. * * *

“It becomes common soon after the hardy willow has unfolded its leaves, and about the time the fragrant spicewood blossoms, when the ants, spiders and beetles become active once more, and just in the height of the arbutus season. The northward movement is far from being steady or regular, being largely governed by weather conditions; Mr. Burns calculates from his mass of data that the average distance traveled daily is about 12 miles, varying according to season and weather conditions from 7 to 48 miles per night. It is absolutely certain that it does not move steadily night after night, but only as the weather permits or necessitates and its physical condition allows.”

Flickers often migrate in companies of considerable size, in loose, scattered flocks, noisy and active, flying from tree to tree and calling excitedly. Their arrival is announced by the loud challenge-call, given from the top of some tall tree, _wicker_, _wicker_, _wicker_, or _wake-up_, _wake-up_, _wake-up_, as the male challenges his rivals or invites his prospective mate to join him in courtship. This, one of the most welcome sounds of early spring, is indeed a call to “wake up,” for all nature is awakening, buds are swelling on the trees, verdure is appearing in the woods and fields, the early flowers are beginning to blossom, the hylas are peeping in the warming pools, insects are becoming active, and the songs of the early birds announce that spring is here. Another spring sound soon strikes our ears, a loud, far-reaching, vibrant sound, the long, almost continuous roll of the flicker’s drumming, another challenge-call, a preliminary of the courtship performance; at frequent intervals, often repeated over a long period in early morning, he beats his loud tattoo on some hollow, resonant limb.

_Courtship._--The courtship of the flicker is a lively and spectacular performance, noisy, full of action, and often ludicrous, as three or more birds of both sexes indulge in their comical dancing, nodding, bowing, and swaying motions, or chase each other around the trunk or through the branches of a tree. From the time of Audubon to the present day, many observers have noted and described the curious antics of this star performer. But I prefer to quote first from some extensive notes recently contributed by Francis H. Allen, as follows: “The courtship of the flicker is an elaborate and somewhat puzzling performance. Two birds face each other on the branch of a tree or cling side by side, though at a little distance apart, on the trunk, and spread their tails and jerk their heads about in a sort of weaving motion, frequently uttering a note that is peculiar to this performance, a _wick-up_ or _week-up_. The head motion is a series of backward jerks with the bill pointing up at an angle of perhaps 60° and the head at the same time swinging from side to side. Sometimes a short, low _wuck_ is uttered from time to time during the performance. These bouts occur not only between male and female, but frequently between two males or two females.

“In April 1934, for more than a week I saw a trio of flickers about my house. Invariably the two females went through courtship antics together, while the male fed on the ground nearby, apparently completely indifferent to them. One of the females was much more active than the other, which usually kept a stiff pose with head drawn in, only occasionally responding with feeble head-waggings. At no time did the active female use any other display than the head-wagging, and there was never any suggestion of combat or intimidation.

“A year later, 1935, the flickers near my house behaved differently. In the afternoon of April 24, the two males were singing loudly and frequently in the woods, about an eighth of a mile away and at some distance apart. By singing I mean, of course, the prolonged laughing call of _wick-wick-wick_, etc. Presently they stopped singing, and one flew toward the other, stopping about halfway. Very soon the other joined him, and a long period of posturing and _wick-up_-ing ensued. Both birds had the black mustaches of the male. The posturing was the regular ‘weaving’ of the head and the fanning of the tail. The notes, after the first at least, were much subdued in tone. There were frequent intervals of quiet. The birds kept close together most of the time, often with heads only two or three inches apart, or perhaps less. They flitted about frequently, sometimes clinging to the trunk of an oak, sometimes perched on a horizontal branch, and once or twice they alighted on the stems of underbrush. After a long period of posturing, they met in a momentary tilt, and presently there was another clash after more posturing, then a third clash, and after that they separated. The same bird was the aggressor in at least two of the clashes. As often in such encounters, the attacked bird stood his ground and the attacker veered off. It was very mild warfare, if it was really serious at all.

“Two days after the bout of the two males, I saw two females engaged in the dance in one of our pear trees. It lasted only a few minutes, and I heard no notes. Not long after the dance of the two females a prolonged ‘sexual flight’ took place. It lasted five or ten minutes, as nearly as I could tell, with a few short intervals of resting. I could at no time determine the sexes of the two birds thus engaged, but occasionally a snatch of faint song was heard (_wick-wick-wick_), and I assume that they were male and female. They flew rather slowly and kept only a few feet apart. It was evident that the spacing was intentional and that the pursuer made no attempt to catch up with the other. The flight covered a territory of several acres. It was a graceful and interesting performance.

“I supposed at the time that this sexual flight indicated that the affair was completed, but later that afternoon I several times saw a male and two females together, the females posturing and _wick-up_-ing, the male motionless. The females showed no enmity toward each other and did not face each other, as the males of two days before did. They kept rather farther apart. At one time a second male appeared and stayed about for a time, but he disappeared, apparently without becoming a serious factor in the situation.

“Three days later a pair of flickers, male and female, were feeding peacefully together on the lawn in the morning and in the afternoon, and I judged that the marital arrangements of at least two of my flickers had been completed.”

More active courtship on the part of a female flicker is thus described in some notes from Lewis O. Shelley: “On April 24, coincident with a male flicker’s message from the elm stub, a female and a second male appeared. All three were later in the cherry tree by our garden, perched on branches some three feet apart. The female took the initiative in the following activities and, perched crosswise of the branch, often bobbed and ducked up and down, then crosswise of the branch jerked to left, right, left, right, head cocked erect and with tail fully spread. At times the males, less actively, did likewise, but for the most part perched noncommittally, silent and still, giving but few calls. At one time, after the female had displayed intermittently several times, and when the males had been still for some five minutes, she sidled up to the nearest male and again displayed with much wing-fluttering and tail-spreading and sidewise twitchings; then the same to the other male who flew when her actions of bobbing and bowing face to face commenced. Not to be outdone, or so affronted, she flew after him, then the second male followed.”